“A Modest Immigration Proposal” (Seltzer) is kind of interesting. He points out that if immigrants are actually boosting an economy then employers should be happy to pay for them. Therefore, if the goal is maximizing economic growth (or paying back $20 trillion in debt), the best way to choose non-refugee immigrants is to auction slots to the highest-bidding employers.
Seltzer heaps derision on central planners in the slightly-smarter countries:
At the moment, countries that try to restrict the inflow to the most productive applicants rely on bureaucrats to decide which skills are most needed, and assign points to applicants possessed of those skills. If recollection serves, in Australia social workers received more points than economists, a system that is clearly flawed, at least in the view of this practitioner of the dismal science.
The Canadian system, which requires bureaucrats to assign points to prospective immigrants, the system that President Trump unthinkingly holds up as a model, just doesn’t work, as the pro-immigration New York Times recently pointed out. “The formula has changed over the years, with points for training and job categories rising or falling as officials’ ideas on job readiness changed. . . . Head scratching.” Worse, one province decides it needs long-distance truck drivers, another food and beverage processors. There is no sensible way to balance regional interests to produce a permit allocation that is in the national interest.
Where I would part company with Mr. Seltzer is on his top-level “Set a limit on total immigration” procedure. He says “it can be reviewed annually, perhaps adjusted in response to changing labor-market conditions—down in periods of rising unemployment, up if tight labor market conditions threaten an inflation upsurge.” Immigrants and their children and grandchildren will determine our population size 50 or 100 years from now. It doesn’t make sense to change a 50- or 100-year goal based on immediate labor market conditions (see Should everyone be glad that judges have blocked Donald Trump’s restrictions on entry to the U.S.?).
What about temporary labor?
In the case of the temporary (e.g., seasonal) permits, the employer would post a bond, refundable upon proof that the worker had left the country when his/her visa had expired. Over time, employers would learn which workers were most efficient and might raise the bids for permits for those workers every year. We would soon learn whether agribusinesses are correct when they say that Americans simply won’t take these sorts of jobs, their alternative being to spend hard cash on temporary visas.
(I’m not holding my breath waiting for Americans currently on SSDI/Oxy to start harvesting lettuce.)
The trend in the U.S. is away from market-based approaches like this and towards central planning. However, it is kind of an interesting mental exercise nonetheless!
One problem with government created pseudo-markets is the potential for manipulation by the sponsoring entity. If this occurs, you end-up with what is basically a “fiat” outcome but with much less transparency on how it came about. If the market rules are not very well designed there is also the potential for manipulation by “market” participants which also defeats the purpose of the “market”.
“(I’m not holding my breath waiting for Americans currently on SSDI/Oxy to start harvesting lettuce.)”
“it’s intellectually dishonest to say[…] that immigrants do “jobs that Americans will not do.
…The willingness of Americans to do a job depends on how much that job pays — and the reason some jobs pay too little to attract native-born Americans is competition from poorly paid immigrants. Finally, … our social safety net has more holes in it than it should — and low-skill immigrants threaten to unravel that safety net. … Unfortunately, low-skill immigrants don’t pay enough taxes to cover the cost of the benefits they receive.”
Krugman, http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/03/paul_krugman_no.html
I find it interesting that the same people who think that employers will be forced out of business if the minimum wage is raised think those same employers will just raise wages if access to immigrant labor is reduced.
It’s amazing to behold the arrogance of these people who think they are owed a working business model by the government. If you can’t pay a market clearing wage it’s really fine to close up shop and figure out something else to do with your life.
The employers of low wage immigrants are welfare leeches dragging down the middle class. The imported workers are net tax drains. The employers either need to pay Americans a market clearing wage that covers the cost of living, or close down.
>It’s amazing to behold
>the arrogance of these
>people who think they
>are owed a working
>business model by the
>government.
Actually, you are the one asking the government to interrupt the market driven flow of labor into the U.S.
>The imported workers are net tax drains.
No, their employers capture a greater share of their value-add and end up paying taxes on it.
We can do open borders for labor after we get rid of the public schools and other social spending, revoke the civil rights act to restore freedom of association, and also negotiate reciprocal treaties so that Americans can choose to work overseas with minimal hassle and double taxation. Seeing as we’re miles away from that situation and nothing about the global labor market is remotely free, the “market driven flow of labor” must remain highly regulated. Ideally to a rate of zero, considering present circumstances.